COLANI Energy Saving Plane

Hi Everyone!

I wasn't sure where to post this.

This is a colour picture of the Colani Energy Saving Plane, designed by Luigi Colani.

Are there any three-view schematic line drawings available of this aircraft?
This would make an interesting illustration or model!


Chuck

I found a real nice colour picture of this aircraft, but I can't seem to size it well-enough to post it.
Can anyone else try?
Thanks!


Chuck

You can upload to www.zshare.net and give us a link, Chuck.

COLANI Energy Saving Plane

ChuckAnderson said:

Click to expand...

Hi Everyone!

Looks like it worked!!!

Chuck

Dear Chuck, when you composing a message, use Reply form - and at the left lower corner behind massage text field you will see Additional options button - clicking on it allows you to add up to 8 pics with 512 Kb total right from your hard drive. Imageshack is cool, but I'm frustrated looking at many posts at numerous aviation forums picture links from which now just leading nowhere. Overscan regulary makes backup of forum contents, so we have ability to save all the treasure contents here forever.

littel Info about Luigi Colani
a German industrial designer possessed by rounded, organic forms, which he terms "biodynamic"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Colani

He also possessed by speed in form cars, Motobikes or Aircraft


His NASA study "Super Jumbo" form 1980s (1000 Person on Board)

the newes Form "Delphin Inspiration"

Colani Version for Chines aircraft industry

he the Idea to build a Propeller Speed Record Plane.

first version Source
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft7X/FRHeft76/FRH7605/FR7605d.htm


seconde version Note that Insane Propellor Colani clame it work better that a normal one.


Latest Version "the Pontresina".



his version of Seanger Space Shuttle note the Chines Logos


wat he thinks this is a good Mach 5 Aircraft....


Mach 24 Airliner in Landging form after Takeof it form a Ringwing....


"Air superiority Fighter"
looks cool but can it fly :


Colani Helicopter

dit he Build A Working Aircraft ?
Yes he workt on desgin of Fanliner

To my opinon, Luigi Colani is an artist, not an aircraft designer ! So his designs fit
very well to a sci-fi film, but probably wouldn't be able to leave the ground in
reality. And I dare to say, they never were meant to do so ! If you have ever seen
Colani in TV, then I think, it is clar, that his ideas and events on publishing them,
were "events", "happenings", or what ever you would call them. I think, I've said this
in a post quite a time ago, he once showed a "biodyamic" racing bike in TV and some
bike professionals tested it. It was a real laughter ! Maybe the Fanliner would still have
been able to fly, Colanis contribution was quite small in this case, but all other designs
are less realistic, than most of the weirdest patents found on Google.

Michel Van said:

looks cool but can it fly

Click to expand...

Not a single one of his scultpures there looks like it was designed by someone with the slightest notion of how aircraft actually work. The two-stage spaceplane was especially bad... theres almost no room for fuel in the second stage, while the engines are enormous.

I agree ,they culd'nt fly ;But I like those mock up ;Merci ,Michel !
The Fanliner ,modified to follow the Colani's ideas ,actually flew in 1976 .

That "Air Superiority Fighter" must be what the Valkyrie looked like when it hatched.

Anyone want to volunteer and try to do a model for X-Plane from some of Colani's designs? Except the shuttle...
BTW, Colani, at least in the US and Europe, didn't submit any patents on his aircraft designs...
Checking for Japan..

"BTW, Colani, at least in the US and Europe, didn't submit any patents"
Did Picasso submit any patent for "Guernica", or Salvadore Dali
for "Clock Explosion" ? ;D

Jemiba said:

To my opinon, Luigi Colani is an artist, not an aircraft designer ! So his designs fit
very well to a sci-fi film, but probably wouldn't be able to leave the ground in
reality. And I dare to say, they never were meant to do so !

Click to expand...

I completely agree, but what beautiful designs!

I went to the Colani exhibition in Karlsruhe a few years ago and took a number of photos there. I attach a few...

And the first picture looks like a deltawinged Leduc 021, but
plagiarizing isn't uncommon in the world of arts ! ;D

Jemiba said:

And the first picture looks like a deltawinged Leduc 021, but
plagiarizing isn't uncommon in the world of arts ! ;D

Click to expand...

yes that True

colani about that:
"i went 1948 to paris a sorbonne, have heard Aerodynamic, became aircraftmen."

the DSCF0103.jpg model
is Colani space shuttle hermes 1987.

McTodd said:

I completely agree, but what beautiful designs!

Click to expand...

To my eye they look ugly...not because of aesthetic reasons, but because I'm an aerospace engineer, and to me true beauty is a combo of both form *AND* function. If the plane Simply Will Not Work, then it is a useless design, a wasted effort... and an ugly use of time and resources. This, of course, assumes that the designs were either intended as serious aeronautical excercises, or were sold as such. If they are pure art, then... meh.

Doesn't anyone have any more pictures of the Colani Jaëger / Air superiority Fighter than the 3 that are up on Wiki or any 3 views?
It's going to be very hard to model it in X-PLane otherwise.

B.T.W. I'm trying to make a model "based on" the the aircraft in X-PLane and from depron for RC.

A rough, very rough sketch of this weird "design". Reminds on a Klingone cruiser
from Star-Trek ...

McTodd said:

Jemiba said:

To my opinon, Luigi Colani is an artist, not an aircraft designer ! So his designs fit
very well to a sci-fi film, but probably wouldn't be able to leave the ground in
reality. And I dare to say, they never were meant to do so !

Click to expand...

I completely agree, but what beautiful designs!

I went to the Colani exhibition in Karlsruhe a few years ago and took a number of photos there. I attach a few...

Click to expand...

Excellent work getting the Pontresina. I was hoping to find a better shot of the propeller.

Michel Van said:

seconde version Note that Insane Propellor Colani clame it work better that a normal one.

Click to expand...

Is that a forward-swept propeller!? I know of no material it could possibly be made of!

"Is that a forward-swept propeller!? I know of no material it could possibly be made of!"

".. couldn't be able to leave the ground in reality. And I dare to say, they
never were meant to do so !"

I jokingly call his designs "Colanics" since they're just as crappy as any colonic...


KJ Lesnick

Some additional pictures/designs (all from this nice blog: http://mytechnologyworld9.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html). I like the author's comment: "Many of his shapes will haunt your sense of beauty - you can either love them, or hate them, there is no middle ground. However, this is the essence of exciting design: to challenge the predetermined (and possibly stale) mainstream sensibilities."

I'm with blamblam on this one. I think the most beautiful designs are those that can achieve an aesthetically pleasing design from a completely functional construction. Adrian Newey, a famous Formula One aerodynamicist/designer said he would choose the prettier of two design ideas provided they performed equally well. His cars were routinely the most beautiful on the grid - purely by coincidence since it was function that drove his form. Colani's work has zero engineering invested in his work so they're about as useful as autoshow concept cars. That said I am all for food for thought designs that might provoke real out of the box thinking...kind of how some Sci Fi works.

BTW OrionBB...everytime I read a passage of yours I subconsciously imagine you as Dr. House. ;D

prolific1 said:

Colani's work has zero engineering invested in his work so they're about as useful as autoshow concept cars.

Click to expand...

Less so, since concept cars can inspire actual automotive designers to design actual autos. Who the hell are Colanis aircraft going to inspire apart from art-fanboys? Surely not any actual aircraft designers.

BTW OrionBB...everytime I read a passage of yours I subconsciously imagine you as Dr. House. ;D

Click to expand...

It's not Lupus Aurora.

The bulk of Colani's work has always been general consumer products; the planes, trains and automobiles are his theoretical playtime.
I had a set of SONY folding headphones from the '80s that were designed by Colani, the design worked well and they were comfortable.
They actually came with packaging that turned into a display easel. Kinda cool.



So Scott, speaking of artist-designers, do you like Syd Mead?

"The bulk of Colani's work has always been general consumer products"

That's it ! Colani is adept to give a special shape to things, that would work as well without
this shape, but wouldn't please the eye (many people prefer the Porsche designs). In the case
of aircraft, the shape in most cases is determining the function and that's what make his aircraft
designs at least a little bit doubtful.

In the case of aircraft, the shape in most cases is determining the function

Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree on that. It is the function that determines the shape, not the other way round!!!
"Form follows function", remember?

Stargazer, you're right of course. What I meant was, that a designer cannot simply
give a "cool" shape to an aircraft, if this shape doesn't fit structural and aerodynamical
needs. You can design a mobile, that looks like a Micky Mouse and even if it's not
really practical, it can be used to phone. To do this with an aircraft, is much harder,
at least if it is still expected to fly !
AFAIK, the only Colani design, that actually left the ground was one of the Fantrainer
prototypes and there his influence was only cosmetical.

Agreed. At the end of the day, and though I am a great lover of beautiful cars and trains, they can never be as fascinating as aircraft. I always say that anything with an engine and four-wheels CAN roll, you don't need to be an engineer to create a car that works. But an aircraft?? Only an expert can get something to take off and STAY up there!

joncarrfarrelly said:

So Scott, speaking of artist-designers, do you like Syd Mead?

Click to expand...

Mead and Ron Cobb I like. They can at least design things that look like they might work.

Colani Mega-passenger Aircraft

1977. The mega-passenger aircraft is based on the shape of the Megalodon shark. Colani presented his own mega-version of a passenger aircraft seven years after the 747 first went into service. It has four flight decks, swing-wings at the rear and two fivefold drives. Each flight deck can seat up to 1,000 passengers. At the invitation of Tom Riedinger, Colani presented his model and the simulations he had produced himself in Seattle.

Click to expand...

http://www.bangertinternational.de/colani/images/images.php

Model of Colani-designed business jet.

Sources:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colani_Bizz_jet_02.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colani_Bizz_jet_01.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sza525/2005991583/

Colani Staggerwing

Source:commons.wikipedia.org

OK, so this Colani design inspires me to design a similar
hypersonic shape. Colani calls it "Feather". It doesn't
look too impossible to me.

Personally, looking at his designs is a treat for me.

And how can we say we can't get some of his designs
to fly given that many aircraft these days aren't statically
stable anyway.

I think the point of his designs is to motivate thought
as well as for enjoyment for those of us who appreciate them.

So if you're designing an aircraft for the US government, OK
it's all functionality.

But if you're designing an aircraft for personal use, or perhaps
it's a toy even, then beauty and 'coolness' could very easily
enter into the picture.

shockonlip said:

s a treat for me.

And how can we say we can't get some of his designs
to fly given that many aircraft these days aren't statically
stable anyway.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of static stability... it's a matter of basic aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, pressurization, other details. His fighter has the cockpit stuck way up on a forward fin. Why? It confers no advantages, but makes the plane heavier, weaker, and will batter the crap out of the pilot during maneuvers. His business jet has *triangular* windows, as well as terrible forward vision for the pilots. His "mega passenger aircraft" seems to not pay any attention to the need to generate lift at low speed, and has a structurally hideus outer mold line, requiring massive internal bracing for pressurization, as well as being about as aerodynamic as a Trabant. His forward swept propellors seem to have no basis in reality whatsoever; even made from solid carbon fiber, they'd fly the frak apart under centrifugal force once spun up. His SSTO for NASA shows no internal propellant volume, just a whole hell of a lot of wing area for no good reason... wings that require spars of compound curvature. His two-stage aerospaceplane is so goofy it's not even *wrong.* His Mach 5 aircraft defies logic both in terms of aerodynamics and structure.

Basically he's a grade-school kid doodling neato-kean scribbles, but he somehow convinces people to give him money to make large models of 'em.

Bah.

Orionblamblam said:

shockonlip said:

s a treat for me.

And how can we say we can't get some of his designs
to fly given that many aircraft these days aren't statically
stable anyway.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of static stability... it's a matter of basic aerodynamics, structures, propulsion, pressurization, other details. His fighter has the cockpit stuck way up on a forward fin. Why? It confers no advantages, but makes the plane heavier, weaker, and will batter the crap out of the pilot during maneuvers. His business jet has *triangular* windows, as well as terrible forward vision for the pilots. His "mega passenger aircraft" seems to not pay any attention to the need to generate lift at low speed, and has a structurally hideus outer mold line, requiring massive internal bracing for pressurization, as well as being about as aerodynamic as a Trabant. His forward swept propellors seem to have no basis in reality whatsoever; even made from solid carbon fiber, they'd fly the frak apart under centrifugal force once spun up. His SSTO for NASA shows no internal propellant volume, just a whole hell of a lot of wing area for no good reason... wings that require spars of compound curvature. His two-stage aerospaceplane is so goofy it's not even *wrong.* His Mach 5 aircraft defies logic both in terms of aerodynamics and structure.

Basically he's a grade-school kid doodling neato-kean scribbles, but he somehow convinces people to give him money to make large models of 'em.

Bah.

Click to expand...

So these things were not designed functionally as aircraft of course, but they are fun to look
at for me (OK - not all are), but they also give me ideas. I think they can inspire one to design
a new real aircraft.

> His fighter has the cockpit stuck way up on a forward fin. Why? It confers no advantages, but makes the plane heavier, weaker, and will batter the crap out of the pilot during maneuvers.

So I look at this and say, hmmm, possibly the empennage and cockpit all together, and
also all forward. That's interesting to think about.

Also reminds me a bit of the Nord Griffon, and Lippisch LP-13a (cockpit in vertical tail).

That cockpit/empenage really sticks up due to that mounting arm from the main fuselage.

Perhaps it could attach to other fuselages of unmanned vehicles and provide adequate
clearance for forward visibility due to the mounting arm, turning them into manned
vehicles.

What if that arm is a control arm - and what if that arm can rotate the cockpit
through all three axis so that the acceleration vector always goes through the
pilot at the most beneficial place?

Also, nose can possibly interact with the main wing for positive effect (didn't parasol wing
have such an effect - maybe not - I need to go check it out.) Should the cockpit be able
to rotate below the fuselage? Is that better?

Underside vertical stabilizers also act as landing gear. They don't retract. Looks like maybe
a lighter and simpler retraction mechanism than normal.

... And on and on. I actually had many more ideas but this illustrates the process.

So I believe one can get some interesting ideas from this model.

> His "mega passenger aircraft" seems to not pay any attention to the need to generate lift at low speed, and has a structurally hideus outer mold line, requiring massive internal bracing for pressurization, as well as being about as aerodynamic as a Trabant.

This thing looks like it has lots of volume. Like a Zeppelin. I wonder if this thing could also possibly be a rigid airship and could get some
slow speed lift from that. Also structural strength by gas pressurization from inside maybe? Also an airplane too. Need to check it out!

> His business jet has *triangular* windows, as well as terrible forward vision for the pilots.
This one I actually like a lot. I'll bet we could easily fix it. I like the C-130 like view the pilot has. Maybe the canard is all wrong anyway.

> His forward swept propellors seem to have no basis in reality whatsoever; even made from solid carbon fiber, they'd fly the frak apart under centrifugal force once spun up.

I really haven't looked at these too much, but this sounds possiby cool! Blades that open like flowers when they spin up?
I wonder if this could actually be useful as well as cool? I expect someone may have looked at this before.

Anyway, interesting ideas for evenings of enjoyable design fun.

Maybe it won't work out, but maybe something will, and you never know what other idea you may get in the process!

Luigi Colani is an artist and to my opinion, so it's a little bit unfair to regard him as
something else.
His pieces of art look (!) like something made to fly and they shall associate being an
aircraft, but actually they are... artwork. Joseph Beuys, for example, made a sculpture,
which looked like a chair, but be sure: It was never intended to be a piece of furniture.
The world of arts is a little bit different to the "normal" world, I think. If an artist announces
to kill 100 pigs on the marketplace in the city, nowadays he quite probably will never get
permission and he knows this before. But just the announcement already is kind of art. Colani
announced to beat the speed record for prop driven aircraft, or something like that and that's
art for him, too. Interesting for collectors of art, but not for fans of aviation !

I am not a fan of all of Colani's works, but I find them inspiring (which IS the purpose of art I believe).

Certainly most of them do not look airworthy, even from my viewpoint as a non-aerodynamicist. But a designer's job is primarily to imagine "the shape of things to come", not to be bothered with the technical aspects thereof.

In the automobile industry, design bureaus imagine concept-cars which look very nice, and not only they do not know about the technical limitations, but they don't HAVE TO care about it because it would refrain their creativity. Their creations are passed over to the technical boards which determine the feasibility, the financial boards which determine the viability, and so forth. I see Colani's efforts as exactly this: the first stage of a creative process that must then be handed over to specialists in their own areas so as to determine how to adapt the basic concept to the realities of physics and the limitations of technology.

But if you don't have designers to think "different", and let only the specialists come up with designs, you end up with results that are basically always the same. I believe this is the result of working too much for the military: two companies are given very precise specs and end up with very similar designs although there has been no interaction between the two. Private aircraft have always been much more inventive because the inventors do not necessarily elaborate the shape around a pre-determined engine, radar, etc. but start with the shape and incorporate the various technical elements afterwards. Sure, some designs really flopped, but some very interesting designs also emerged.

As the webmaster of a site dedicated to Burt Rutan's designs, I am used to reading about the industry's preconceived ideas of what you can and can't do... and how a single man with a vision (and of course a solid technical knowledge to back it) has managed to very concretely change the way we perceive an aircraft should look like... and being a concept-car buff, I guess it all makes me a little more lenient towards Colani...

As to the unfounded concept of forward swept propeller blades... why would a respected propeller manufacturer associate with Colani to produce the mock-up if the concept was so wacky? Surely it can't be good publicity for them. Makes me wonder.

Very nicely put Stargazer !
I am in awe of you!